Kav is in. 50-48

When is the rioting starting?

Kav is in. 50-48

When is the rioting starting?

let the snow flake melting begin!

She is probably being tranquilized right about now.

I'd prefer her being Mirandized ....

Kav is in. 50-48

When is the rioting starting?

Interesting that Murkowski abstained.  She gave an incoherent explanation for her not supporting the confirmation yesterday. I guess the pressure from the GOP as the lone Republican to oppose confirmation, backlash from Alaskan voters, the news commentators blasting her "reasoning" and Sarah Palin's threat to run against her next time were weighing on her.

She voted "No" Friday on cloture -- a procedural vote to halt debate and call a vote to confirm.  She stated she would be voting against confirmation, but instead changed her mind and voted "present".  That is also debatable.   

"I believe that Brett Kavanaugh is a good man. I believe he is a good man, it just may be that in my view he is not the right man for the court at this time," she said in her Friday explanation.  She would have voted for Kavanaugh as a NOMINEE, but she was going to vote "no" over some fuzzy, ambiguous, irrational feeling that he's not the "right man for the court at this time."  Made absolutely no sense.  How do people keep electing these Democrats-in-Republican clothing to high office?  No common sense.  She makes Hirono look quasi-intelligent.

Republican Sen. Steve Daines of Montana was not present at the vote because he was attending his daughter's wedding.
Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who broke with her party on Friday and voted against advancing Kavanaugh's nomination, voted "present."

Sorry, but I haven't had enough winning yet. Not even close.

Next up: Ginsburg and/or Breyer.

7-2 for the next 30 years would look really good to me.

Plus, if you think Trump Derangement Syndrome is taking a toll now...the oceans will rise... not from "global climate change", but due to the inundation of liberal tears. I can't wait.

    

She makes Hirono look quasi-intelligent.

Whoa there big fella. You got a little carried away there. Okay, you got a LOT carried away there.

You're not gonna beat some lying hypocrite saying that half the people in the country don't ever do the right thing and should shut up* just by being incapable of explaining that you do stuff by "feels" rather than reason, logic and evidence.

* And that the presumption of innocence doesn't apply in this case because she disagrees with several of his judicial opinions. I pray that some day she has the same standard applied to her.

Whoa there big fella. You got a little carried away there. Okay, you got a LOT carried away there.

You're not gonna beat some lying hypocrite saying that half the people in the country don't ever do the right thing and should shut up* just by being incapable of explaining that you do stuff by "feels" rather than reason, logic and evidence.

* And that the presumption of innocence doesn't apply in this case because she disagrees with several of his judicial opinions. I pray that some day she has the same standard applied to her.

I think Hirono doesn't actually believe the stuff that spews forth from her mouth.  She's just mouthing the words her party scripts for their members in Congress.  Where she gets in big trouble is in embellishing.

After her performance these last few weeks, the Star-Provdatizer has the gall to pronounce "Hirono is on fire."  I would lean more towards "Hirono's credibility burns up in a cloud of sexist smoke." Her crap actually plays well to the people who vote for her.

Don't get me wrong.  I don't give her any more credit for intelligence than the nearest slug, but at least she articulates her stupidity so there's no question about her stance.  Murkowski couldn't even do that.  "I'm voting "no" unlike every single other Republican in the Senate, and I really can't explain why."  Either she can't explain, or she won't.  Did Feinstein hold a carrot out for her vote?  I tend to think not, since she dropped out and voted "present."

These media-based Obama sycophants are the first to lavish praise on Obama for preaching about divisiveness and tribalism in the US tearing us apart, believing it's all Trump's doing.

Then they post something that clearly demonstrates who is dividing the country.  This "us versus them" attitude is exactly why Trump calls these purveyors of Fake News the enemy of the people.

"You guys?"  I guess he puts himself in the losing "tribe."

Kavanaugh's staunch gun-rights defense among hundreds of decisions in spotlight

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/kavanaughs-staunch-gun-rights-defense-among-hundreds-of-decisions-in-spotlight

These media-based Obama sycophants are the first to lavish praise on Obama for preaching about divisiveness and tribalism in the US tearing us apart, believing it's all Trump's doing.

Then they post something that clearly demonstrates who is dividing the country.  This "us versus them" attitude is exactly why Trump calls these purveyors of Fake News the enemy of the people.

"You guys?"  I guess he puts himself in the losing "tribe."

Hey Jim. Fuck you!

I'm just sayin'...

Here's the video of the roll call vote in the senate, including all the screaming interruptions by the "protesters".

Can anyone imagine what the response of the Democrats would have been had their their opponents behaved in such a manner on any Obama legislation or nominees?

Hypocrites.

lol
heads

And Ford disapears.

Maybe 4D? ATF bans bump stocks. Goes to Scotus and loses...accessories now protected? All state bans revearsed.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Hahahahaha!!!!     

So predictable.  After Harry Reid and the Democrats changed the Senate rules 4 years ago from a 60 vote super-majority to a simple majority to pass cloture (ending filibusters), Chuck Schumer is now saying the Democrats should look at changing it back **IF** they regain the Senate.

So, it was okay when it worked for them, but a horrible rule when it prevents them from blocking two Republican Supreme Court Justice nominees.

Democrats <==> Hypocrites

The terms are interchangeable.

Look out for this new "campaign issue."

McConnell warned them then, but they don't care if it furthers their agenda.

P.S.  The ACLU, the gold standard for supporting individual Constitutional rights (like presumption of innocence), just flushed $1 million down the toilet to try and stop Kavanaugh's confirmation.

=================
 Statute of limitations?
 ---

Took me a while to find it but Maryland has no statue of limitations on this type of offense. So she can at any time still file a complaint. However, according to this article her lawyers say she won’t pursue it.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/36817/christine-blasey-ford-will-not-pursue-further-ashe-schow?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=matt_walsh

Maybe we will start seeing some real backlash from the Dems actions:

http://fbnewscycle.com/vlf/

Took me a while to find it but Maryland has no statue of limitations on this type of offense. So she can at any time still file a complaint. However, according to this article her lawyers say she won’t pursue it.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/36817/christine-blasey-ford-will-not-pursue-further-ashe-schow?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=matt_walsh

The no statute of limitations in that jurisdiction was known early on, and numerous commentators and even a few Democrat senators suggested that she file criminal and/or civil complaint(s) in that jurisdiction, which (criminal complaint) would have resulted in a full police investigation, with possible filing of charges and arrests. Of course that's all based on the premise that something actually happened, which thus far investigators from the United States Senate and the FBI have not been able to corroborate, AT ALL. Maybe the Maryland police have better investigators and will vindicate Ford. You have to wonder why she wouldn't make use of all avenues to validate her claims. Hmmm?

I call bullshit.